Reader
The Good Old Way Defended · Gilbert Rule

The Good Old Way Defended, Treatise · Section 5

SECTION V.

Testimonies from Antiquity which my Antagonist pretendeth to wrest from me, Vindicated.

HE mentioneth these p. 9. as our third Argument for Parity. Whereas if he had thought fit to read what hath been written on our side; he might have found thrice as many more, and of more strength than any thing that he maketh us to say. But this, and the two Arguments above debated with him, are all that he will allow us to have on our side. His Introduction to this piece of his Work smells rank of such a temper of mind as I am not willing to name; while he calleth them who possessed the Government, and Revenues of the Church, Atheists and Enthusiasts; and that without exception or Limitation. Thus are all the Presbyterian and Congregational Ministers of England (as well as others) charactered by him. We will not retaliate; but the learned and religious world had, and have another Esteem of not a few who then were in the Ministry; and judge that Atheism, and other sinful Evils, have been diffused into the Church after that time; though we deny not that then it was too manifest among some. He saith that Blondel employed all his Skill to make the Antients contradict themselves, and all contemporary Records. This I pass as a piece of his usual and groundless Confidence. He saith, when Blondel's Book appeared, the Presbyterians concluded (before ever they read it) that it was all pure and undenyable Demonstration. And that his Countreymen (the Scots Presbyterians) think they need no other Answer to what is written against them, but to say that Episcopacy, and all that can be found for it, is quite ruined by Blondel, and Salmasius: and yet that few of them read them. It is not manly so to despise an Adversary whom one undertaketh to refute; neither is it Wisdom to spend so many hours, as he hath done, to argue the Case with them who are so despicable: nor is it Christian so to undervalue others whose Praises are in the Gospel; which I am sure may be said of some eminent Presbyterian Writers; who now having served their Generation, enjoy their Reward: but it is his way thus to supply what is wanting in the strength of his Arguments. I wonder who told him that the Presbyterians did so extoll Blondel's Book before they read it; or that few of them have read him, and Salmasius. Who of us ever said, that saying Blondel and Salmasius had ruined Episcopacy, was a sufficient Refutation of it? May not we, without such blame, commend the Works of these learned Men, as well as he p. 40. telleth us that every Line of them is sufficiently exposed, and frequently; and for this cryeth up the Bishop of Chester. He saith, we shut our eyes against the clearest Evidences: that we think that Blondel's Book may barre all Disputation on that Head: that we refuse to enter into closs Engagement with them. These are a parcel of Words in which there is no Truth: and if we should Retort every Syllable of them on himself (I say not on his whole Party, among whom, I know, there are learned Men, who would be ashamed of this manner of pleading their Cause) how should this Contest be decided? Some who have spent more of their Years in Reading, than this Author hath done; and also have given better proof of it; have not so insulted over their Adversaries, as men of no Reading. There is also little ground given for his insisting on this, as one of our main Arguments; for tho the Presbyterians will not part with the Suffrage of the Fathers, while the Controversie is about paritie of Church power, and the Jurisdiction of one Presbyter over the rest; yet they use oftner to act the defensive part, with respect to Antiquity, that is latter than the Canon of the Scripture: and which is of more weight, they never laid the stress of their Cause on Humane Testimony; but build their Opinion on the Sacred Writings. But seing he is pleased to lead us in this way, we are willing to engage with him (as closly as he will) on this Head: and to debate both on whose side the Fathers are, his or ours; and whether their Testimony be so convincing as he pretendeth it to be.

§ 2. Although I do much dislike my Antagonists rude Treatment of so great a man as Blondel was, saying that he studyed to please the Independents, rather than the Presbeterians, because they were then more potent and numerous; (so p. 42.) and calling his Arguments childish Reasonings: p. 43. Yet I do not undertake to make it appear, that every Testimony he bringeth from the Fathers is fully concludent, by it self. I observe also, that this Author, though he professeth to answer the Citations brought by Blondel, yet medleth but with a few of them, and these none of the most evident; except what Blondel bringeth out of Jerom: The first Testimony that he mentioneth is, the Inscription of Clements Epistle to the Corinthians, written from Rome; which is, foreign, That is, the Church of God dwelling in Rome, to the Church of God dwelling in Corinth. Blondel hence concludeth, that there was no Bishop in either place, seing no notice is taken of him. To this our Authors answer is, this would make for Independency, and that the Laity (as he speaketh) had an equal share in Jurisdiction with the Bishops and Presbyters. And that this would prove the equality of Softhenes, Timothy, and Sylvanus, with Paul; because he sometimes joineth them with himself in the Inscription of some of his Epistles. And that it was the Humility of Clement that made him so write. Answer 1. He mistaketh the Opinion of Independents: they have their Church Rulers, and do not put the Exercise of the Government in the hand of the Multitude: though, I confess, many of them give the people somewhat more than their due. 2. If this was an Epistle of a whole Church to a whole Church (as Blondel taketh it) there was no need of mentioning either Bishop, or Presbyters; and so equality of Jurisdiction of the people with them, cannot be hence inferred: but if it was an Epistle of a Bishop to a Church, where another Bishop governed, as this Author will have it: It is an unusual Stile not to mention the Bishop, at least of that Church to which the Epistle was directed: the Humility of Clement might make him not to distinguish himself from the people; but our Bishops would count it no Humility, but Rudeness, so to treat his brother Bishop at Corinth. 3. The Apostle Paul nameth some of the Pastors of the Church with himself, in the Inscriptions of some of his Epistles, as his fellow Pastors, who had joint, though not equal, Authority in the Church with him: but he never assumeth a whole Church into that Society with himself. By the Church, in both places, it may be rationally thought, Clement meant the teaching or ruling Church, or the Church representative; and in that case it might have been expected, if he were for Episcopacy, that the Bishop, at least in Corinth, should have had some peculiar mark of Honour: as when a Presbytery among us, is addressed, the Stile is, to the Moderator, and the rest of the Brethren, &c. though no special Jurisdiction be ascribed to the Moderator. But after all, I look on Blondel's Observation on this Passage, as rather an Introduction to what he had further to say from this Epistle, and a cumulative Argument, than to be fully concludent by it self.

§ 3. Another Passage out of the same Epistle of Clement, brought by Blondel, our Author taketh a great deal of pains about, from p 43. It so entangles him, that he cannot, with much strugling, get out of the Net. The words of Clement, cited by Blondel, are, foreign. That is, wherefore they (the Apostles) preaching through Countries and Cities, placed their first fruits, whom by the Spirit they had tryed, to be Bishops and Deacons for them who should believe: neither was it a new thing; for of old it had been written of Bishops and Deacons, I will make their Bishops in Righteousness, and their Deacons in Faithfulness. From this Passage Blondel observeth first, that in Clement's time there was Bishops in the Countrie, and in Villages, as well as in Cities. 2. That the City Bishops had no Authority over the chorepiscopos or Countrie Bishops. 3. That there were but two sorts of Church Officers, Bishops and Deacons; besides some other things which are not so much to our present design. Our Author, in his Answer, overlooketh the two former, which tend most to ruine his Cause (for the Bishops of that time could not be Diocesans, but Pastors of Congregations, if these two Observations hold, as they plainly follow from Clement's words) and he insisteth only on the third, the Dichotomie of the Clergy: which hath less probative for… than the rest: yet it hath more strength in it, than his Answers are able to enervate: which I now shall make appear. His Answer is, that he hath already answered our Argument taken from the Dichotomie of the Clergie. Reply. Though we do not make that an Argument by it self, in all cases where it is found; yet in some cases (and this in particular) it is concludent. Clement is here giving account what Officers the Apostles settled in the Churches: and if they settled Bishops distinct from Presbyters, and Deacons, this account is very lame, and useless. His second Answer is p. 44, &c. Clement, by Deacons, here understandeth all Ministers of Religion; whether Presbyters in the Modernnotion, or Deacons, who, by the first Institution, were obliged to attend upon Tables? And so by Bishops and Deacons, we may (saith our Author) understand Apostles, Bishops, Presbyters, and Attendents upon Tables. And then, at great length, he proveth that which no body denyeth, that the word Deacon, is used i… a great Latitude, for all sorts of Church Officers. Reply. The Question is not how the word Deacon may be used in some cases, & on some occasions, but what Clement here understandeth by it: I affirm, that it is absurd to understand it here in that Latitude that our Author fancieth. For first, his meaning should be, the Apostles appointed in the Churche… that they settled, Apostles, Bishops, Presbyters, and Attendents on Tables: so that every Church in every Village, must have its Apostle, and Bishop too; beside inferior Officers. 2. If Clement had so meant, it was superfluous to mention Bishops and Deacons too: it had been enough to tell the Corinthians, that the Apostles settled Deacons; that is, Officers in Churches; seing all sorts are signified by Deacons. 3: To say that Presbyters are to be understood by Deacons, rather than by Bishops, is without all imaginable ground: the word Presbyter is as largely used in Scripture, as that of Deacon: if we thus, at pleasure, expound Names, or rather Words, we may maintain what we will. 4. This Dichotomy being used on such a design, as to inform the people what were the ordinary Officers in the Church, by Apostolick Warrand, that they were to have regard to; it would not answer its end, if there were Bishops whom they and the Presbyters must obey: for either they were to understand that the Presbyters were comprehended under the word Bishops; but then they had no Instruction about the Ruling Bishop, and the Teaching Bishop, as distinct, and how they should regard each of them: or under the word Deacon; and then they were at as great a loss, what sort of Deacons he meant; whether the Rulers or Servants of the Church. 5. Though the word Deacon, be often applyed to any who serve God in publick Office in his Church, (yea, or in the State) yet that ever the Rulers, or Teachers of the Church are signified by it, when it is used distinctively from some other sort of Church Officers (as it is here) is more than I know.

§ 4. Another Answer he bringeth to this Passage of Clement, p 46. that Clement speaketh not of Ecclesiastical Policy, as it was at last perfected by the Apostles; but of the first beginnings of the Christian Church, immediatly after the Resurrection of Christ. Reply. If it be granted, that at first the Aposties settled Churches to be ruled by Presbyters, and served by Deacons, as this Answer seemeth to yield; they must let us know the Grounds on which they believe that the Apostles did alter this Policy, and set Bishops over the Churches that they had once thus settled: we find no Warrand in Scripture for this Conceit; though I know that some of our Prelatick Brethren affirm, that the Churches were governed by Presbyters, under the Inspection of the Apostles while they lived; but after their Death, Bishops were appointed to rule over them. We may rationally expect that they should give us good assurance for this Change; which yet I have not seen: if they will bring Arguments for it, we shall consider them. A 4th Answer he bringeth p. 47. that Clement's words cannot bear such Parity as Presbyterians plead for; because he doth also Dichotomise the Jewish clergy: among whom were the High Priest, Chief Priests, Priests, and Levites. Reply. If Clement, when he so divides the Jewish Clergy, were on purpose instructing us how, and by whom the Affairs of the Jewish Church were managed, this Answer were pertinent: but if this Distinction be used occasionly, without this design, it is not at all to the purpose: in the one case Distinction is required; in the other case, it is enough to express the thing in general, and undistinguished terms. He bringeth yet a 5th Answer, p 47, 48. That Clement exhorting the Corinthians to Order and Harmony, setteth before them the beautiful Subordinations under the Temple Service; and immediatly recommends to them, that every one should continue foreign in his own order. Reply. If this Reasoning be at all significant, it will conclude, there must be a Pope, as well as Bishops, in the Christian Church: as there was a High Priest over all the Priests, and other Jews. We must then understand Clement, that there must be Order in the Christian Church, as well as in the Jewish Church; and every one must keep within the Station that God hath set him in: but it noways hence followeth, that there must be the same Degrees of Church Officers in the one that was in the other. What he citeth out of Jerome, Ep. ad Ewagr. admitteth of the same Exposition; and is plain to be the whole that Jerome intendeth by these words, quod Aaron & filii ejus atque Levitae in Templo fuerunt, hoc sibi Episcopi & Presbyteri vendicent in Ecclesia: viz. That, as in the Temple, there was a Subordination of the Levites to Aaron and his Sons, so should the Deacon be to the Presbyter, whom Jerome, through that whole Epistle, proveth, to be the same with the Bishop. But it is like we may afterward hear more of this from our Author. A 6th Answer is p. 48, 49. (for this Citation galleth him sore, and maketh him look on all hands for Relief) Clement himself distinguisheth the foreign from the foreign; and the last may signifie Office and Age both together. Reply. He no otherways distinguisheth them, than as the one word signifieth Office, or ruling Power; the other, the Age of them who use to be put into that Office: and though Presbyter is often used to signifie the Office; yet not when it is joined with, and distinguished from foreign. And it is clear, that in that place Clement is exhorting them to be subject to the Presbyters, as he had done several times in the Epistle; as they were foreign, Rulers, (not one, but more in the Church of Corinth) and as they were foreign, elder in years: wherefore he exhorts young men to Sobriety.

§ 5. It is unaccountable Tergiversation, that this Author, pretending to examine some of the most remarkable Testimonies brought from Antiquity by Blondel, insisteth only on that which is of least weight; even in the Testimony already mentioned, as is above shewed: and likeways passeth over all the rest brought out of the same Fathers Writings, without so much as mentioning them. Blondel sheweth out of the Epistle of Clement already mentioned, that Clement telleth us, that the Apostles knowing per Dominum, by Divine Revelation, that there would be Contentions about the Name of Bishop; therefore they appointed Presbyters and Deacons to manage the Affairs of the Church: so far were they (saith Blondel) from thinking Prelacy the best, or only Remedie against Schism; as some did in after ages. He doth also shew, how Clement teacheth, that the Presbyters (or Bishops, for he often interchangeth these two Names as signifieing the same persons) were set in the Church by the Apostles, and after by other excellent men (so that the Apostles made no Change in the Government) that they were placed with the consent of the whole Church (not by the Bishop and Patron) and he pleadeth that such as had well done the work of a Bishop should not be turned out, for the holy Presbyters who have finished their Course, need fear no Change. And after sheweth, how absurd it was that the most ancient Church of Corinth (it had then stood, as it is thought, about 25 years) should move Sedition against her Presbyters: some turbulent Spirits among them withstood, not a single Bishop (of whom not a word in all this Discourse) but the Presbyters of the Church: and he adviseth the Seditious rather to depart, that the Flock of Christ might enjoy Peace, foreign; with the Presbyters that were settled in it: it seems he did not name the Bishop, nor provided against Sedition against him; because he knew no such person at Corinth. And again he biddeth them be subject to the Presbyters. Now all this insisted on by Blondel, he passeth by (which was his wisdom) and insisteth only on the Dichotomie of the Clergy; which hath far less weight than these Passages have.

§ 6. He next taketh to Task what Blondel citeth out of Polycarp; which is, that writing to the Church of Philippi, he taketh no notice of their Bishop: that he biddeth them be subject to the Presbyters and Deacons, not mentioning the Bishop, but a plurality of Presbyters which was in that one Church. His Answer to all this is, first, that Blondel himself taketh notice that Polycarp distinguisheth himself from the rest of the Presbyters, while he saith, Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him to the Church in Philippi: and that by this he assumes a kind of Prelation above the rest of the Presbyters at Smyrna. He fancieth that this is mighty uneasie to Blondel: but it had been more ingenious to tell us that Blondel brings this as an Objection against himself, and answereth it fully and easily, calling it nuda Conjectura, and giving several Reasons for Polycarp's naming himself, from his being the older man, and the older Minister: And being ordained by an Apostle (which was a Dignity, though it gave no Superiority of Power) as being better known to the Philippians: and Blondel bringeth abundance of parallel Passages, where no Superiority of Power can be imported. All this our Author passeth over in silence. Next he saith, this is still the Bipartite division of the Clergie, which is a mistake; for here is Subjection required to Presbyters in Commune; which could not all be Diocesans: and their Head, the Bishop, is not noticed: and his Dichotomie here is Argumentative; because (as was above shewed of Clement) he is telling them what Church Officers they should respect: where the Bishop was chiefly to be mentioned, if such a person had been in that Church. He will prove, p. 51: that this can be no Argument for Parity. Because first, Iren… refutes the Heresies of the Valentians, from the unanimous D… preserved among the single Successors of Polycarp; which could be no Argument, if the Ecclesiastical Power of the Church of Smyrna had been equally lodged in the Colledge of Presbyters. I ask him, how doth the Parity of Church power weaken this Argument? Do not Ministers in any Church, succeed one to another, as well as Bishops? And if they be faithful, they will continue the true Doctrine, and hand it down to their Successors, as wel… as Bishops would do. Neither hath it any force, that single Successon are mentioned; for if there were more Flocks and Pastors in Smyrna there was one Moderator in the Presbyterie; who is mentioned as more eminent, though having but equal power. If there was but one Pastor and many ruling Presbyters; he and his Successors did preserve the Truth by faithful Doctrine, not by Episcopal power. His other pro… is, the Epistles of Ignatius are zealously recommended in that Epistle of Polycarp; in which Episcopal Jurisdiction is asserted: of which our Author w… speak in due time. When he shall please to speak of Ignatius, we sh… consider what he saith; and hope to find, that all the proof he ca… thence bring is insufficient. Mean while it is an odd way of arguing an Author commendeth a Book, Ergo, he approveth all that is in it. … he had said Polycarp commendeth Ignatius's Epistles, in that they ass… Prelacy, that had been to the purpose; otherways his Inference … without all force.

§ 7. The next Father cited by Blondel is Hermas, in his Book calle… Pastor: on whom he layeth very little stress, as is evident to any wh… will read Blondel, without prejudice: and I think Blondel needed not … have mentioned him: both because he is of little Authority; it bei… most uncertain what Hermas was the Author of that Book; whether … mentioned Rom. 16. 14. or the brother of Pius: Blondel bringeth not few Authors on both sides. Also this Hermas saith little either for or against Parity. I observe several things of my Antagonists conduct wit… respect to Hermas. 1. He pretendeth to bring two palpable Evidences fro… him, that Episcopacy was the Ecclesiastical Government when that Book w… written: which he laboureth to prove p. 5. because the sending circul… Letters is insinuated to be the peculiar priviledge of Clement, then Bishop … Rome. Answer. This Evidence (and the other will be found to b… like it) is so far from being palpable, that it is not intelligible, ho… this (to a Protestant) should be an Evidence for Episcopacy: for first if it prove any thing to his purpose, it will prove the Papacy: viz. tha… Clement Bishop of Rome had Authority over all the Churches, and by that power might write Circular Letters to them. 2. Circular Letters may be written containing Advice or Information, where there is no Authority: and this was very proper for Clement, who resided in the Imperial City, which had Correspondence with all places in the Empire. The 2d palpable Evidence is, that Hermas reproveth some who were ambitious to exalt themselves, & primam Cathedram habere: whence he wisely inferreth; If there be no Power, there can be no abuse of it. To which I answer, I wish there were no Ambition but among the Prelatists. May not one who is a Presbyterian in his Profession, strive to set up Episcopacy, that he may be a Bishop? Was there Episcopacy in the Church of Scotland anno 1660, and 61, when ambitious Men laboured, and prevailed to make a prima Cathedra, that themselves might possess it? And might there not be such in the days of Hermas; as there appeared to be afterward, and as was in the Apostles times, when Diotrephes was marked as a foreign 2. There is a prima Cathedra even among the Presbyterians; the Moderator's Chair, and there may be Ambition in seeking after even that pettie Preferment. The Principatus that he after mentioneth, may have the same signification: it doth not always signifie Authority; but often a Superior Dignity. The next thing I observe is, he neglecteth (as is customary with him) that which seemeth to have the most strength, among the Passages cited by Blondel out of Hermas; viz. foreign; which last words Blondel translated, tu ante renunciabis Presbyteris Ecclesiae. Biblioth: Patrum, hath it thus, Tu autem leges in hâc Civitate cum Presbyteris qui praesunt Ecclesiae. Either way it maketh more for the Parity of Presbyters, and their Power, in ruling the Church, than what else our Author hath thought fit to take notice of out of Blondel. The other Citation brought by Blondel, and so laboriously answered by our Author, I lay little weight on: only I observe his charging that learned Author with a fraudulent Trick, p. 55. and distorting the words; whereas the words, as cited by Blondel, and by him, are the very same.

§ 8. The Testimony of Pius Bishop of Rome, is next brought by Blondel, out of his Epistlle to Justus Bishop of Vienne: where he telleth him, Presbyteri & Diaconi non ut majorem; sed ut Ministrum Christi te observent. My Antagonist taketh this only for an Exhortation to Humility. I know not whether his Superiors will think it inconsistent with Humility to be obeyed by their Presbyters; or if any of them will be so humble, as to disown all Majority with respect to the Presbyters: that Humility is here insinuated, we grant; but that no more is required, cannot be said without doing Violence to the words I shall not contend whether this Epistle of Pius be legitime; or spurious; but I suppose it may be safely asserted, that if it was written by a Presbyterian, that Opinion is much older than this Author will allow. Another Argument Blondel bringeth from Marcion, being rejected by the Presbyters at Rome; and not admitted to their Communion: whence he inferreth, that the Church of Rome was then governed by Presbyters in common. Our Authors answer is first, they denyed to receive Marcion; which is a better Precedent to regulate our Opinions and …ractices by, than the Petition of a lewd and profligate Heretick. Reply. If they had denyed on account of their want of Power without their Bishop, (for the See was then vacant) this Answer should have some sense: but they pretended no such thing; neither did they reprove him for his Address: if he had addressed to a single Presbyter to be received, he would surely told him that it was not in his power to Determine in that Matter: but when he addressed to a Colledge of Presbyters, they gave another Reason for their refusal; of which anone He bringeth a second Answer, with his wonted Confidence: as if we were all out of our Wits who say not as he saith in this Matter: and indeed it hath need of this to strengthen it; for it is very weak of it self: it is, that in the vacancy of the See, the Colledge of Presbyters might manage the ordinary Policy and Discipline of the Church; though they never medled with such special Acts of Jurisdiction as were always reserved, by constant Practice, and primitive Institution, to the Episcopal Order: though they might have received Marcion upon Repentance, in the vacancy of the See, I hope no man will thence conclude that they would have enterprised any thing of this nature and consequence, if their Bishop were alive, or if another were chosen in his room. Reply. 1. Here the Question is manifestly begg'd: that there were reserved Acts peculiar to the Bishop, by constant Practice, and primitive Institution: the Practice is what we are debating: and such Institution we desire to be instructed in: we find it not in the Bible; which can be the only ground of that Divine Right we are now contending about. 2. As the Question is begg'd on the one hand,; so he yieldeth it on the other, by owning Governing Authority in the Presbyters without a Bishop: if they have power, they have it from Christ, Ergo, he hath not given all Ruling Power to the Bishop, and made the Presbyters only his Council. Or let him shew us by what Rule of the Gospel, Authority which they had not before, devolveth on the Presbyters when the Bishop dieth. This Government by Presbyters without a Bishop is not Episcopal Government, Ergo, it is not contrary to Divine Institution (by this Answer) if the Church be governed without Bishops, which is inconsistent with the Divine Right of that Government. 3. I know not what Act of Jurisdiction is higher than receiving or excluding, and casting out Church Members: wherefore if Presbyters have this, we must see some special Warrand from Scripture, before we can deny them another part of Church power. 4 That they would not have acted so without their Bishop, if he had been alive, is said without ground: if he had been absent they might have done it: as I have else where shewed that the Presbyters at Carthage did in Cyprian's retirement. If he could be with them it was irregular to act without him, as being their Praeses; though having no majority of power. Before I pass from this Argument, I observe a greater strength in it, than Blondel hath mentioned, or my Antagonist hath attempted to answer: for clearing which, we must reflect on the History from which the Argument is drawn: which is Marcion, the Son of a Bishop in Pontus, for a lewd Act that he had committed (ob illatum per summum nefas Virgini stuprum) was driven away from the Communion of the Church, by his own Father; on which occasion he came to Rome, and attempted to be received into that Church: he was rejected by the Presbyterie; after which he preached his Errours in that City, and made great Disturbance. Now the Argument that we draw from this Passage is, not only that the Presbyterie did not reject his Petition as being incompetent Judges in that Case; but their Answer implyeth a Recognition of their power in this Matter: for they tell him, foreign, we cannot do it without the permission of thy worthy Father (nor this because of his Fathers Episcopal power, but) because there is one Faith, and one Agreement; the Bond of Unity between Rome and that Church in Pontus (I think its Name was Sinope) and was that which they gave as the reason of their Refusal: seing he was cast out of one Church, it was not reasonable that he should be received into another without her consent. Romes Headship was not then known. But what followeth is yet stronger for our Cause; foreign: we cannot go contrary to our excellent Collegue (or Fellow Labourer) thy Father: where Presbyters look on a Bishop as their Collegue, and in no higher Degree; and that when they are speaking of the Exercise of Church Authority: they plainly suppose, that they had the same power to take in, that he had to cast out: but they would not irregularly exerce that power, as they must have done if they had recived Marcion.

§ 9. Another of Blondel's Citations, our Author answereth with a great deal of slighting and contempt; its taken out of Justine Martyr's Apology for the Christians; where he giveth an account of the Church Order that was among the Christians; and mentioneth no Officer in the Church but Praepositus & Diaconus. His Answer to this is, Justine's design was only to vindicate the Christians from the Reproaches cast upon them about their Meetings; he had no occasion to speak of the Hierarchy: the Christians concealed their Mysteries as much as they could: and the Names of Bishop and Presbyter as well as their Offices, were known to the Heathen. How to make the parts of this Answer hang together, I know not: if the Heathen knew their way, why did they conceal it? Neither is there any ground to think that they concealed their Mysteries, the Knowledge of which was the mean of convincing Heathens. Yea, the design of his Apology was to make their Mysteries known, that it might be seen how excellent they were. And to say that Justine had no occasion to speak of the Hierarchy here, is a mistake; for he did mention some of the Church Officers, and because he mentioned no more, it is like he knew no more He seems now to be weary of his undertaking (and no wonder, it hath succeeded so ill with him) and therefore p. 60. he telleth us how nauseous it is to repeat more: and hudleth up some other Citations cited by Blondel in a general Answer; that it is a silly Quible to found an Argumen… on Dichotomies: and telleth us, the Names, as well as the Offices, were distinguished in the earliest Monuments of the Church, and for this he citeth Usher, mentioning Acta Martyrii S: Ignatii: but is not pleased to name Book, nor Page, of that learned Author; who hath written many things. The same he doth with Clemeus, Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and Origen; but neither words nor place he mentioneth: such arguings are to be neglected. Blondel also citeth Papias, calling all the Ministers of the Word, Apostles, and others from whom he had learned what he wrote, Elders or Presbyters. This Author will have it to be meant of their Age, not Office. I lay not much weight on this Testimony, more than he doth. But that Papias doth not mean the Age only of them whom he mentioneth, may be gathered from what he saith of the second John, whom he mentioneth (for after he had named John among the Apostles, he nameth another, John after Aristion) and him he calleth foreign. This cannot be meant of his Age, when he saith John the elder; for John the Apostle was older than he. It must then be understood of his Office. And Euseb: lib: 3: c. 35. telleth us that there were two Johns buried at Ephesus, and that the Monuments of both remained in his time. Being now weary with arguing, and it seems fretted with what he could not well answer. He falleth to downright Railling, p. 61. he putteth on a Confidence beyond ordinary: this is the way of some when they are most at a loss. This Conduct will not take with wise and considering Men. He telleth of the unconquerableness of Prejudice (in the Presbyterians no doubt; because they will not yield to his Dictats, and what he looketh on as an Argument) and of their miserable Condition in reading the Ancients, with no other design than to distort their words. Before he taxeth us for not reading them, now we read them, but with an ill design. I must tell him, it is too much for him, either to judge how we are employed in our Closets, and what Books we read, or what inward designs we have in our reading. We think he distorteth the words of the Ancients (we judge not his designs in reading them) he thinketh we distort them, let the Reader judge. Next he representeth us as having sold our selves to the Interest of little Parties; and shut our Eyes against the express Testimonies of these Fathers, whose broken Sentences we torture and abuse, to support Novelties, and more of this Stuff; which it is not fit to answer, because of the Wise Man's Advice, Prov: 26: 4.

§ 10. Now he will p. 62. have the Reader to make an Estimate of the Presbyterian Candor from two Instances. The first is, Blondel citeth the Gallican Church sending Irenaeus to Rome, and calling him a Presbyter, when he was Bishop of Lyons. Our Author contendeth that he was not then Bishop; and that Photinus his Predecessor, was not then dead. This piece of Chronology, though maintained by Eusebius, and Jerome, Blondel disproveth, by many Authentick Records, as he thinketh. And now where is the want of Candor in this case? Is every man who after diligent search into History, doth mistake in Chronology, about a Matter of Fact so disingenious; and that to such a Degree as this Author's Clamour would represent. This I say, supposing that Blondel doth mistake in this Matter. I think it not worth the while to examine the large Discourse he hath, and the manifold Citations to confirm his Opinion, finding that Debate somewhat Intricate (whether Photinus was then alive or not, when Iraeneus was sent to Rome, and called a Presbyter) and the Matter of it is of no great Consequence. It seems our Author hath been at as little pains as I am at leasure now to take, about this Debate, but referreth you to Dr. Pearson for satisfaction; and yet he hath the confidence to charge so great a man as Blondel was, with perplexed Conjectures, and affected Mistakes: we think it neither Christian, nor Manly, nor Scholar like, so to treat the learned Men of his opposite Party. The other Instance, whereby he thinketh to prove want of Candor; yea Impudence, in the Presbyterians, is p. 63. that we sometimes cite Cyprian on our side; and can name nothing plausibly, but that wretched Quible of the bipartite Division of the Clergy. He thinks it needless to bring Testimonies against us out of Cyprian, there are so many: he calleth us also Schismaticks, and supposeth that we have not read Cyprian. Who can stand before such potent Ratiocinations? He referreth the Vindicator of the Kirk to a Book then expected. I suppose he meaneth I. S. his Principles of the Cyprianick age; which I saw long before I saw this Book of his: where indeed all that can be drawn from Cyprian (and much more) is carefully gathered together. And I refer him for satisfaction about Cyprian's Opinion in the point of Church Government, to the Answer to that Book under the Title of the Cyprianick Bishop examined. In which Book I shall take this occasion to confess a Chronological Mistake, (this Author would have the Charity to call it the want of Candor, or what else he pleaseth to impute to his Adversary) it is p. 20, near the end, Basil, and Optatus, are said to live in the same Age with Cyprian; whereas they lived in the next Century: this was occasioned by an over hasty Glance into the Chronological Tables: I hope the Reader will pardon this Digression. Thus my Antagonist leaveth Blondel in quiet possession of the far greatest part, and most evident Testimonies, that he bringeth out of the Fathers for Parity: some will think he had better not begun this Work, than thus leave it imperfect; if others have answered all Blondel's Citations, what he hath done was needless, if not, he doth his Work but by halves.

§ 11. I shall add some other Testimonies out of the Fathers; which our Author, at his leisure, may consider Chrysost: on 1 Tim. 3. asketh the Question, why the Apostle passeth from giving Directions in, and about, the Qualifications of Bishops, immediatly to Deacons, omitting Presbyters: and giveth this Answer, that there is almost no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter: and the care of the Church is committed also to Presbyters, (which maketh it evident that Chrysost: did not think that Bishops ruled alone) only he maketh the difference to be in Ordination; which he is so far from looking on as of Divine Institution, that he maintaineth, saith Durham, that, in the Apostles time, Presbyters ordained Bishops. This same Author on Tit. 1. Homil. 2. by the Elders whom Titus was to ordain in every City, understandeth Bishops; because (saith he) he would not set one over the whole Island: and after; for a Teacher should not be diverted by the Government of many Churches; but should be taken up in ruling one: where he maketh the Teacher and Ruler to be the same person: also assigneth but the Government of one Church to one man: both which are inconsistent with Diocesan Episcopacy. Ambros: in Tim: 3. 9. hath this Passage; qui tanta cura Diaconos eligendos praecepit, quos constat esse ministros Sacerdotum; quales vult esse Episcopos, nisi, sicut ipse ait, irrepraehensibiles: where he plainly supposeth all the Church Officers, who are not Deacons, to be Bishops: and a little after, Post Episcopum tamen Diaconatus ordinationem subjecit, quare? nisi quia Episcopi & Presbyteri una ordinatio est; uterque enim Sacerdosest; Episcopus tamen primus est; ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit, non tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus; hic enim est Episcopus, qui inter Presbyteros primus est: Denique Timotheum. Presbyterum ordinatum significat; sed quia ante se priorem non habebat, Episcopus erat. All this seemeth to be a Description of a Presbyterian Moderator: for he giveth the Bishop no Prelation but that of Precedency, or Priority, to a Presbyter: and that, not by a new Ordination, which should give him a superior power; but a Seniority, or Priority of Ordination, which was the way of a Moderator's being set up at first; but was after changed into Election; when it was found, that sometimes, the oldest man was not the fittest man for that Work. From all this, it is clear, that in the time of Ambros: (which was in the fourth Century) Majority of Power in a Bishop above a Presbyter, was not lookt on as Juris Divini; nor that a Bishop must have (after he is ordained a Presbyter) a new Ordination, or Consecration; whereby he getteth Jurisdiction over his fellow Presbyters, and their Flocks: I do not deny but that Ambrose doth, in some things, mistake the primitive Order of the Church: and misunderstand the Scripture account that is given of it, wherefore he ingeniously confesseth on Ephesians 4. 11. thus, ideo non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostolica ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia: yet he giveth ground to think, that even then, the Distinction between Bishop and Presbyter was not arrived at a Majority of Power, or sole Jurisdiction. I observe here also, obiter, that ordinatio, in the primitive times, did not always signifie authoritative setting apart one for a Church Office; which our Author else where doth with much zeal plead. If the Reader please to add to these, all the Testimonies cited by Blondel (which out Author thought not fit to medle with) he may see abundant cause to think, that our Opinion about Paritie is not so Novel, as this Enquirer fancieth it to be. Though I lay little weight on the Opinions of the School-men, in the controverted Points of Divinity; and especially, in the Point of Church Government: yet considering, that they owned the Roman Hierarchy, a Testimony from them, or other Papists, seemeth to be a Confession of an Adversary, extorted by the force of Truth, Lombard: lib: 4: Sententiar: dist: 4: after he had asserted seven Orders of the Clergy, when he cometh to speak of Presbyters, p: 451. Edit: Lovan: 1567, apud veteres (saith he) idem Episcopi & Presbyteri fuerunt, & p. 452. cumque omnes (nempe septem ordines Cleri) spirituales sunt & sacrae, excellenter tamen Canones, duos tantum sacros Ordines appellari consent; nem… Diaconatus & Presbyteratus; quia hos solos primativa Ecclesia legitur habuisse; & de his solum praeceplum Apostoli habemus. Cajetan, on Titus 1. 5. 7. hath these words; ubi adverte, eundem gradum, idemque officium, significari à Paulo nomine Episcopi & nomine Presbyteri; nam praemisit, ideirco r… liqui te in Creta, ut constituas Presbyteros; & modo, probando regulam, dic… oportet enim Episcopum, &c. Estius, lib: 4: Sententiar: dist: 24. when he i… proving Episcopal Jurisdiction above a Presbyter, doth not refer it to Divine Right: quod autem (saith he) Jure Divino Episcopi sint Presbyte…is superiores, & si non ita clarum est è sacris literis, &c. And he provet… it by the Authority of some Popes, and Councils. As also Lombard. … supra, fetcheth the Original of the several Degrees of Bishops from the Heathen Flamins, Archi-flamines, and …roto-flamines; not from Scripture Bellarm: citeth Medin: condemning Jerome as erroneously holding the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter: this Bellarm: hath lib. 1. c. 15. de Clericis: Object: 6. Medina doth there affirm, August. Ambros. Sedul. Prima…us, Chrysost. Theodorat. AEcumen. and Theophylact. to be of the sam… mind: and he addeth, alque ita illi viri alioqui sanctissimi, & sacrarum literarum consultissimi; quorum tamen sententiam prius in …erio, deinde in Waldensib…, postremo in Wiclefo damnavit Ecclesia, &c. It is here evident that others as well as the Scots Presbyterians, held the Opinion about Parity to be no Noveltie. Also Sixtus Senens. Biblioth: Sanct: lib: 6: Annotatio: 324: looketh on Jeromes Opinion as being for the Identitie of Bishop and Presbyter; and citeth as agreeing with him, Ambros: Chrysost, Sedul: An selm: Thom: Valdens: against Wiclife: who refuteth him as being of Jeromes Opinion in this: and of Alfonsus Castrensis he saith, non veretur fateri Hieronimum hâc in parte errasse: to these Schoolmen I shall add some of the Canonists, as plainly against this Jus Divinum of Episcopacy. Gratian: dist: 60. cap: ult. Ad verbum Papa; sacros ordines dicimus Diaconatum & Presbyteratum: hot quidem solos primitiva Ecclesia habuisse dicitur. Joan: Semeca: Gloss: in Jur: Can: dist: 95. Dicunt quidem quod in Ecclesia prima primitiva commune erat Officium Episcoporum & Presbyterorum, & nomina erant communia. Ibid. c. olim. Et officium erat commune: sed in secunda primitiva coeperunt distingui & nomen & officia. So Owen of ordination p. 108. who also citeth to the same purpose, Concil: Aquisgr: can: 8 Concil Hispal. c. 2. Canon. 7. and Concil. Constantiens. where Presbyters were determined to have decisive voices with Bishops; because in the Law of God Bishops were no more than Presbyters. I am far from inferring from what hath been said, that all these were Presbyterians. But it is evident that some of them did not hold Episcopacy to be Juris Divini, as this Enquirer doth: and that none of them lookt on Paritie as so late an Invention as he doth.